1/26 Kantian Cosmology: The Very Idea Gary Banham, Kant Studies online he general conception of Kantian cosmology in Universal Natural History is one that folds into the T“pre -Critical” period in the basic sense that the status of the types of principles invoked within the work is not subjected by Kant to critical assessment. This is far from meaning that the enquiry of Universal Natural History is simply abandoned by Kant. Rather, the stakes of the inquiry into cosmology become transformed and this transformation has much to do with the results of the Critique of Pure Reason, not least the arguments of the Transcendental Dialectic. In this piece I will first review some of the most salient lines of argument in Universal Natural History prior to undertaking to investigate a reason for re-thinking cosmology in Kantian terms both within the Critique of Pure Reason and in the wake of it. This latter enquiry will hinge both on an understanding of the nature of Kant’s use of the notion of the “regulative idea” and also upon an investigation of his uses of cosmic images within the Critical period. Attraction and Repulsion: The “Newtonian” Cosmology Revisited he Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens has the aspiration to provide an account of Tthe whole edifice of the world on the basis of what it claims are “Newtonian principles”. In the “Opening Discourse” of it Kant indicates that cosmology has both mathematical and physical dimensions, a distinction that leads him to formulate Newton’s own achievements as belonging to the mathematical half. The assimilation of Newton’s work to such a mathematical treatment suggests that Kant’s own work will focus instead on the “natural” © Gary Banham Kantian Cosmology: The Very Idea (2011) 2/26 principles of bodies, using thereby some metaphysical grounds.1 The “physical” part of cosmology does include sustained investigations of the planets, moons, comets and the sun but this is based upon a genetic inquiry that is generally termed a “cosmogony” and the basis of this genetic inquiry is formulated in terms of a story concerning forces. So, in the second part of the first section of Universal Natural History, Kant speaks of elementary matter and distinguishes between types of it that have specific density and attractive force and those which are lighter with the differences between the manifestation of such qualities being, however, conceived as infinite in variety.2 Matter is thereby conceived as including a tendency or conatus to self-organize with the attraction of the heavier parts together in accumulated mass balanced by the repulsive elements of elasticity such that we can formulate what Kant terms a “static law” to the effect that there is an inverse relation between density and distance in the parts of the solar system with the planets formed of the heavier particles being closer to the solar centre, those with the lighter particles being further away. 3 From the basic picture of the solar system Kant expands outwards to a general view of creation and this allows his conception of the Milky Way to approach systematic completeness by means of his overall view of the relationship between attractive and repulsive forces. A key element of this picture is the way it leads to a view of the universe as essentially governed by infinite forces as so that 1 The Physical Monadology, on which Kant worked contemporaneously with the Universal Natural History is explicit in this division between what it terms “geometrical” (Newtonian) and “metaphysical” methodologies and in its aim at reconciling these from a standpoint that effectively derives a different model of physical bodies than is given in the earlier version of the latter. See particularly Ak 1: 476 where Kant speaks of the need to deduce both attractive and repulsive forces in order to explain “the inner nature of bodies”. 2 In making this assumption of infinite variety Kant is clearly alluding to the Leibnizian principle of plenitude. 3 The neatness of this scheme does, however, soon break down when Kant has to deal with the differential densities of Mars in relation to the Earth and Saturn in relation to Jupiter! © Gary Banham Kantian Cosmology: The Very Idea (2011) 3/26 “the field of the manifestation of divine attributes is just as infinite as these themselves are”.4 In claiming this view of the cosmos as infinite in range Kant deliberately opposes those who would claim that infinity is an impossible quantity by explicitly freeing the notion from quantification and expressing a dynamical equation when he raises the prospect of that which has been brought forth by God being related as a “differential magnitude” to that which the divine could have brought forth.5 The infinite variety of the density of matter postulated in the cosmogony is matched by the infinite space in which it is spread out within the bounds of an all-inclusive system. Alongside this new integrated conception of the cosmos comes a vision of endless rebirth as worlds are conceived of as aiming towards perfection of state after which they are destroyed and new ones arise from their ruins.6 This general theory of death and renewal presents the dense bodies at the centre of the whole universe as in decay just as the edges generate new life so that the developed world is caught in between decrepitude and gestation. The ground of the picture of the cosmos that arises from the constant interaction of attractive and repulsive forces is not one that Kant can rest content to describe as imparted to the universe from a source external to it and in 4 Immanuel Kant (1755) Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens (1981 trans. by S.L. Jaki, Scottish Academic Press: Edinburgh), p. 151. See also the earlier statement that with regard to the universe there is “an abyss of a true immeasurability in which all ability of human concepts sinks even when it is elevated by the help of the science of numbers” (108). 5 This reference to “differentials” is all the more intriguing when we bear in mind the use to which the notion is subsequently put by Salomon Maimon who, likewise, utilizes it to go beyond the measurement of quantities and thereby reinvents in his own way a conception of conatus. See Salomon Maimon (1790) Essay on Transcendental Philosophy (2010 trans. by N. Midgley et al, Continuum: London and New York). 6 “What an uncountable number of flowers and insects perishes every cold day; but how little does one miss them, regardless [of the fact that] they are the splendid artefacts of nature and pieces of divine omnipotence; in another place this loss will be offset by overflow.” Kant (1755) p. 158. This image of an excessive economy of the whole cosmos is oddly reminiscent of the work of Georges Bataille: see Bataille (1946-9) The Accursed Share (1991 trans. by Robert Hurley, Zone Books: New York, 3 volumes). © Gary Banham Kantian Cosmology: The Very Idea (2011) 4/26 rejecting this picture he stays faithful to the conception of Living Forces that there are forces immanent to the true motions of things. Thus “implanted forces and laws” which have God as their source are a foundation of the order which is necessarily grounded in the bodies of the universe and which enables it to be the case that we can speak of the true physical character of bodies by means of metaphysics. It is essential to this picture that the laws are directly implanted in the bodies and not an effect of some continual action of God7, not least because the “shortcomings” of nature are a consequence of the essence of nature itself thereby and cannot be attributed to a fault within the divine. Similarly, unlike Newton to whom it appears the Universal Natural History is supposedly indebted, Kant within this work appeals to “the force of attraction which is essentially inherent in matter”, an appeal that not only contravenes Newton’s rule against feigning hypotheses but does so in the starkest manner of giving a property to matter as essential that Newton always shrank from recognising in such a way.8 The reference to such essential qualities is not derived however from “mathematics” or quantitative analysis as Kant understands it but rather from a view of the “natural” bodies that arises from a physics that is grounded in metaphysics. From the understanding of such attractive force as inherent in matter Kant derives the sense that there is a centre of attraction that is the “pivotal point of the entire nature” and which “holds in its sphere of attraction all worlds”. Whilst recognising that the notion of such a centre is paradoxical in an infinite whole Kant nonetheless defends 7 This appeal to the continual action of God was the source of Leibniz’s complaint against both the occasionalists and the Newtonians. For the central debate between Leibniz and the former see (1711) “Conversation of Philaréte and Ariste” in Loemker op.cit pp. 618-28 and for the latter see H. G. Alexander (1956) The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence (Manchester University Press: Manchester and New York). 8 For a careful description of some of the rationale for Newton’s insistence that we cannot describe gravity as essential to matter see Andrew Janiak (2008) Newton As Philosopher (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York), pp. 102-12. © Gary Banham Kantian Cosmology: The Very Idea (2011) 5/26 it in the sense that density can be given a point that is greatest and that at that point we can have the strongest power of attraction and that it is by means of such a notion that the sense that there is only one system in the infinite sphere of creation can be upheld.